Jagdish Ram vs Jagat Ram And Anr. on 14 June, 1951
11a. Now, the law on the point is that where the cause of action in the subsequent suit is different from that in the first suit, Rule 9 of Order 9 of the Code does not apply. In Civil Suit No. 352 of 1933 'the cause of action' was the sale made by 'Mt.' Aurko to Ram Chand on the 13th of June, 1932, whereas the cause of action in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen is the death of 'Mt.' Aurko in 1946. On this point 'Tej Singh v. Hannu Parshad', AIR (27) 1940 All 433, may be seen. Clearly, Rule 9 of Order 9 of the Code does not govern Civil Suit No. 394 of 1945. The cause of action for the present suit arose on the death of 'Mt.' Aurko in 1946. The fact that the present suit as ariginally instituted by Jagdish Ram was for declaration has no bearing on the point that arises for decision in these proceedings. In deciding this point we have to look to the cause of action as disclosed in the amended plaint filed on the 25th of February, 1946.